It is often talked about how the “Red States” make up much of rural America and the “Blue States” are comprised of the urban dwellers. I know an entire book could be written about whether such a divide is a planned event or one of evolutionary happenstance. I’ll leave that debate for another time.

State by state we constantly hear of political and economic activities surrounding demographic differences. The reality of our existence shows that people of different ideology choose to live in areas best suited to them. This is a natural occurrence and the end result is a separation of oftentimes distinctly different cultures.

In what I believe to be a false paradigm of Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, or Democrat vs. Republican, the “True Believers” as they become more easily convinced of political and ideological values it fuels the fire which further inflames the anger and hatred associated with political and cultural differences.

The false paradigm is in the belief that one political party is actually separate and different from the other while looking out for your best interest. While one’s own conscience, character, and personality may give us our political and moral persuasions, it is a false belief that one political party operates autonomously and isn’t controlled by higher powers, nor are they interested in your’s or my best interest short of what it takes to steal your vote.

We can easily see the results of the efforts, programmed or otherwise, in the creation of a distinct divide in this country. Not only are we subjected to more outright verbal floggings and sometimes physical ones due to our political or cultural differences (I guess we can throw in religion as well) but the segregation or the desire for such is welling up, shown in different ways, within the several states.

Because these political and cultural differences exist, suggestions on how to deal with or find a solution to this problem vary considerably.

I have written in the past some about one particular issue in the State of Maine. David Trahan, executive director for the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, has been pushing for several election cycles to change the process for public initiatives being placed on the ballot. The current process only requires a percentage of registered voters according to the number of ballots cast in the last election. These signatures can come from anywhere within the state boundaries.Trahan’s bill would require that the petition signature process obtain an equitable number of signatures from each of Maine’s two Congressional Districts -rural vs. urban.

Trahan, in testimony before the legislative committee, said, “For decades, many Mainers have argued that there are two Maine’s, North and South. Many in the North feel as though they have no voice in Augusta politics. In March of 2012, State Representative, Henry Joy of Crystal even proposed Legislation that would have allowed Aroostook, Piscataquis, Somerset, Franklin, Penobscot and parts of Washington, Hancock and Oxford counties to become their own State called Maine. Southern and coastal Maine would be renamed the state of Northern Massachusetts.”

It is no secret that the notion that “Many in the North” feel they have no voice in Augusta, is due to political and cultural differences based on a different value system. Historically, ballots cast in the State of Maine clearly reflect that there exists a distinct political difference between Northern Maine and Southern Maine.

Instead of Trahan calling for a secession from Maine by the North, he is actually suggesting one condition in which both “parties” are forced to seek out political and cultural adversaries as a means of accomplishing distinct political and cultural opposing proposals as a way of making things more equitable when it comes to the promotion of political and cultural dogma. Not only does one have to ask if this will accomplish what is intended in making the system more reasonable, but is it really possible?

Maine also has those proposing a constitutional amendment believed to guarantee and protect a Maine citizen’s right to hunt and fish. Regardless of whether you or I agree or disagree with such a constitutional reformation isn’t part of the point to be made here. What is the point is that conditions exist in this state where it is felt, due to political and cultural differences, that a threat exists because of one ideology opposing the other.

The majority of people who live in Northern Maine want to protect that right, while the majority of those to the South, find the need to protect that right as being unnecessary.

Do we then attempt to force one side to work with the other side by requiring an effort to place initiatives on the ballot, such as banning bear beating, to get a fair and honest representation of the state’s population, both north and south, or would it be better to create two states or some other remedy?

This dilemma is not endemic to the State of Maine. I was reading an opinion piece today in the USA Today Online. Written by Glenn Reynolds, he shares information about other states attempting to deal with these political, economic, and cultural differences.

Reynolds begins his piece with: “We’re starting to hear more about secession…wanting to separate from the population-dense urban areas that essentially control state decision-making…that they are governed by people in distant urban centers who know little, and care less, about their way of life.”

This is the common theme throughout. I’ll guarantee it exists at some level in every state and perhaps every nation in the world. Can this be changed?

What is not so common is how to deal with it. In California, some are calling for a total secession and creating other distinct states. Others suggest turning the entire region into six separate zones, each recognizable due to their defined political, economic and cultural ideology.

New York is another example of how New York City seems to dominate and dictate all things to the remainder of the state, many of whom completely disagree with the rulings of the higher population.

We find the same problems in Washington State and Oregon, between the east and the west parts of each state, as well as in Illinois between the north and the south.

Is there an answer? Is this an idealistic pipe dream? Aren’t the suggestions of separation and secession nothing more than a reversal of ideology back to segregation? If so, then is segregation natural and more workable?

The author suggests some form of a stronger Federal Government presence that prohibits the states from making stricter laws than what the Feds mandate.

Whereas most states are content to wait until a prohibited person is caught with a firearm, California’s approach is much more proactive. The California Department of Justice cross-references known firearm owners with individuals who have been convicted of felonies, deemed mentally unstable, or given domestic violence restraining orders.

All such individuals are placed on the APPS list. That allows a special gun confiscation unit to visit those people and ensure that they relinquish their firearms.

“When the information is inaccurate, you potentially put people at risk because you have the attorney general’s office sending armed SWAT teams to people’s homes to confiscate firearms,”<<<Read More>>>

“We don’t conduct vigilante activities. Our Officers are licensed by the State of California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS). They are Ca 832 PC and/or Ca POST (Law Enforcement Academy) certified and have backgrounds and experience in Federal Protection Security, Law Enforcement, HAZMAT, and EMT’s, and Military Special Weapons and Tactics. We’re certified by Cal Dept. of Justice Rural Operations, and trained by LAPD Metro in Counter Terrorism response actions, California Central Intelligence Center, Behavioral threat assessment, the State Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, and the California game warden’s tactical unit. We aren’t deputized. It isn’t required. We have arrest powers under the California Penal Code. Our funding comes from government and private contracts.”

LEAR now works in cooperation with County Sheriff’s Depts. & Task Forces (in Multiple Counties); DEA; CA Fish and Wildlife game wardens, BLM, USFS, AG Commissioners and hazardous waste agencies, Special Operation Interagency Teams, Regional Water Quality state and federal agencies; and the game warden MET Team.<<<Read More>>>

After President Trump rejected the Paris Climate treaty, which had never been ratified by the Senate, the European Union announced that it would work with a climate confederacy of secessionist states. Scotland and Norway’s environmental ministers have mentioned a focus on individual American states. And the secessionist governments of California, New York and Washington have announced that they will unilaterally and illegally enter into a foreign treaty rejected by the President of the United States.

The Constitution is very clear about this. “No state shall enter into any treaty.” Governor Cuomo of New York has been equally clear. “New York State is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions.”

In San Mateo, California, during the wee hours of the morning, a mountain lion entered a residence and made a meal out of a small dog. Authorities have stated, “… to secure their doors and windows before sleeping.”

Jim Beers comments on this event: “The human parallels between mountain lions, grizzly bears and wolves are many and large. From the human excuses to justify their actions i.e. “unusual” and “young animal” to “they belong in settled landscapes like this because”…(?) to the media, professors and bureaucrats that sell this abomination as the “new normal”. While the dog is valued property, the undeniable fact that the next time it could be an American child or adult in what was once termed the families “castle” is evident to the most blind supporter of California’s evil policies and laws regarding these animals. What are the “tolerable” consequences; a child per year, two joggers a year, three attacks and serious injuries per year, ten horse per year, 20 dogs per year ??? The fact that hundreds of millions of tax dollars have already been spent on establishing these deadly predators in the settled landscapes of The Lower 48 States and that millions of our tax dollars are being spent annually to establish, mythologize, excuse and babysit these predators only points out the cultural decline and moral vacuum that is hollowing out America today.

“Cougars, wolves and grizzly bears do not belong in settled landscapes and it will, hopefully, one day again be seen and understood as a travesty of justice and the value of human lives in totality that we allowed one group of people (be they voting blocs, pandering politicians, self-serving bureaucrats, radical organizations with anti-human values or world government enemies of our Constitution) to impose on rural, suburban and other persons and their families these deadly dangerous animals. There is no acceptable legal or moral excuse or justification for this situation of encouraging and tolerating such animals where many of those being forced to live amongst them DO NOT WANT THEM.”

Jim Beers

To read some comments about this event, some have great entertainment value, follow this link to Instapundit.

*Editor’s Note* – Will the new Interior Secretary continue this nonsense?

Secretarial Order calls for actions by Interior and its bureaus to secure water supplies while providing environmental protection

WASHINGTON — U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell today issued a Secretarial Order directing the Department of the Interior and its bureaus to take timely actions to help address the effects of drought and climate change on California’s water supply and imperiled wildlife.

“Long-term drought, fueled by climate change, has adversely affected the state’s water supplies, exacerbated effects of water operations on imperiled species, impacted water quality, and added to the stressors affecting the health of California’s unique ecosystems, particularly the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta),” the order states.

“This Secretarial Order is a practical and broad-based strategy to help protect California’s water lifeline for present and future generations,” said Deputy Secretary Michael L. Connor. “This order will ensure the integration of the Department’s actions with those of the State of California to provide a reliable drinking water supply for the public, sustain California’s agriculture, and continue to protect the Bay Delta ecosystem and enhance the conservation of species.”

“Today’s action tracks closely with the state’s multi-pronged Water Action Plan and commits the federal government to a timely review of the California WaterFix project,” said California Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. “This state-federal partnership is what’s needed to improve water reliability for residents and farmers and protect vulnerable ecosystems.”

Developed in consultation with the state agencies and other federal agencies, the order specifies steps by Interior and its agencies to achieve “the State’s co-equal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the environmental quality of the Bay-Delta.”

The Secretarial Order issued today provides direction for the Department, and particularly Reclamation and FWS, with scientific support and technical advice from the USGS, to complete the technical, scientific, and analytical work necessary to make permitting, regulatory, and other decisions associated with various water initiatives. It calls for six actions:

1. California WaterFix Environmental Review. The order directs Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to allocate available resources, as necessary, to complete in a timely manner the Biological Opinions under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and a Record of Decision on the environmental documents for California WaterFix. California released a final environmental impact statement and a final environmental impact review on December 30, clearing the way for a final decision on WaterFix, which is the State’s plan to upgrade infrastructure in the estuary where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers meet before flowing to San Francisco Bay. This will secure water supplies for 25 million people. Interior’s Reclamation was the lead federal agency on the environmental impact statement issued under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Today’s Secretarial Order directs FWS to take all necessary actions to issue an initial Draft Biological Opinion in January 2017 and a final Draft Biological Opinion by March 2017 after incorporating the results of independent scientific peer reviews. A final Biological Opinion is to be issued by April 2017. It specifies that the Department, working with the State and others, will promptly review and consider any information received after publication of the Final EIR/EIS and issuance of the Biological Opinions, and will then be prepared to sign a Record of Decision. This decision will be made by the next Secretary.

2. Collaborative Delta Science Engagement Process. The order directs Reclamation, FWS, and USGS to work collaboratively with the state and other federal agencies to use the Adaptive Management Framework developed as part of California WaterFix to help guide scientific studies and monitoring, assist with Central Valley Project and State Water Project operations, and achieve the co-equal goals for the Bay Delta. New science proposals will be subject to review under various existing science review processes. Implementation of the framework will include an annual review process that develops innovative approaches to the refinement of monitoring and restoration activities that measure species’ populations. Annual review results will be made available to the public.

3. Delta Smelt Resiliency Strategy. This strategy addresses both the risk to the critically endangered Delta smelt—formerly one of the most abundant fish in the Delta— and the risk to water supplies. The order directs Reclamation and FWS to closely coordinate with state and federal agencies and others in implementing all facets of the Strategy. During the next several years, Reclamation will acquire or otherwise make available up to 250,000 acre-feet/year of outflow above current state water quality permit requirements. This additional outflow may include using water transfers, changes in exports from the Bay-Delta, releases from upstream storage, or other measures. Each year FWS must provide to Reclamation and the state a detailed description of specific physical and biological objectives and species needs for Delta Smelt during the spring and summer based on the best available science.

4. Re-initiation of Consultation under the Endangered Species Act on Coordinated Long-Term Operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. The Secretarial order directs Reclamation and FWS to work with other state and federal agencies to carry out the work necessary to complete the recently re-initiated consultation on long term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project.

5. Active Engagement in Development of Voluntary Agreements for Flow Requirements and Coordination on Flows with ESA Requirements. Reclamation and FWS will work with other agencies to provide information to the State Water Resources Control Board as part of its Bay-Delta Plan initiative. This will include coordination with the California Natural Resources Agency in at least the following areas: 1) engagement with key stakeholders to develop voluntary agreements to increase flows and integrate flow and non-flow measures; 2) providing information necessary to establish water quality standards to meet fish, wildlife, and ecosystem goals; and 3) ensuring that requirements developed through the Bay-Delta Plan process are considered in assessing requirements and compliance under the Biological Opinions related to the Central Valley Project and State Water Project.

6. Winter-run Chinook “Species in the Spotlight” Action Plan. The order underscores that implementation of the “Species in the Spotlight” Action Plan is an essential element of reducing both near-term and long-term risks to Winter-run Chinook salmon. This plan was developed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in 2016 as a high priority action plan that would guide allocation of NMFS resources, as well as attract funding from partner agencies and stakeholders. Reclamation and FWS will work with NMFS to incorporate spotlight actions into priorities developed under the Adaptive Management Framework.

“On August 25, 2016, the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) voted unanimously to list the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) as a threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act. The owl is already listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The Commission’s action increased protections for the species by allowing for state and citizen enforcement actions through the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the state courts.” (emboldening added)<<<Read More>>>